Flickr

25 March 2013

Three rationalizations for gas chambers in shelters – and why they're all false

It's hard to
believe many shelters are still using the gas chamber to kill pets. It
seems like something out of the Dark Ages, or a horror movie.

Gas chamber defenders
have a predictable set of defenses they trot out whenever their right to gas
pets is challenged. Let's take a look at them.

1. The AVMA says it's okay.

While
the American Veterinary Medical Association continues to stand on the wrong
side of history on this one, the fact is, if you actually look at what the AVMA
says in its supposed "defense" of the gas chamber, you'll find that
they've put so many qualifications on that seal of approval virtually no
shelter could possibly comply with their guidelines for its use – certainly not
the backwards, poorly-performing shelters most likely to be clinging to the gas
chamber:

In
previous editions of the guidelines, the use of carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon
dioxide (CO2) gas was considered ‘acceptable’ for euthanasia of dogs and cats.
In the 2013 Guidelines, the classification for use of these gases has been
changed to ‘acceptable with conditions’….
The use of these techniques requires that specific conditions be met to
ensure that death is achieved in a humane way. When ALL of the conditions are
met, ‘acceptable with conditions’ methods are equivalent to ‘acceptable’
methods. And, if all conditions are not met, they are not considered
‘acceptable.’

Some
of those conditions include:

High
standards of training for those operating the gas chamber

Gas
chamber must be located in a well-ventilated place, preferably outdoors

Careful
adherence to proper technique, flow, and concentration of gas during use, as
well as use of a high-quality product

High-quality
construction of gas chambers

Animals
should be gassed individually

Chambers
should be cleaned between each use to prevent causing distress to animals
killed afterward

Chambers
should be well-lit and easily observed

The
AVMA statement concludes, "Gas chambers are not
recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and dogs in shelters and animal
control operations."

So
if a shelter truly wants to live and die by the AVMA's blessing on the gas
chamber, they'd better be prepared to meet all the standards for its use. They
might also want to take a look at the raging debate about this on the AVMA website, where you'll find that the organization
itself knows its position is not popular with its member veterinarians, who
haven't been shy about letting them know.

2. We can't afford to kill animals individually.

Guess what? Killing pets by injection is actually less expensive than gassing them to
death. Even if there are some costs associated with making the transition, the
gas chamber is so unpopular with average Americans that raising those funds
should be a snap for any organization with enough operational savvy to hold a
bake sale or make a Facebook post. (Fakkema
D. Euthanasia By Injection Training Guide, American Humane 2009)

Use
of carbon monoxide cannot be justified as a means to… distance staff
emotionally and physically from the euthanasia process. Studies have shown that
carbon monoxide…. has not been shown to provide emotional benefits for staff.
Some shelter workers have reported being distressed by hearing animals
vocalizing, scratching and howling in the chamber, and by having to repeat the
process when animals survived the first procedure

Additionally,
exposure to carbon monoxide is dangerous to human shelter staff; at least one
shelter worker was killed on the job by the odorless, tasteless gas. (Gilbert,
Kathy; "Humane Society Cited in Death of Employee." The Times &
Free Press, Chattanooga, TN, July 25, 2000)

There are
reasons the AVMA has put so many conditions on its oft-cited
"approval" of gas chambers in shelters, and why the Association of
Shelter Veterinarians is unequivocal in its opposition to the practice.